Hacker News Reader

Comment by philippta | Hacker News Reader

The most shocking thing to me about the entire GitHub fiasco is: No matter how bad the uptime is, no matter how bad the UI is. We will keep using the software / service we depend on.

Why do we as software engineers have set fault tolerance and high availability as the primary goal of any software / infrastructure architecture? This shows it's completely irrelevant.

View on HN

It is not. I am just not happy with the alternatives; Gitlab, and Codeberg, for well-discussed reasons. I will pounce as soon as the right one comes along, and I have a few on my radar.

Personally, Fastcomments and all my projects can easily be switched to a self hosted provider, keeping GitHub as a read only mirror. It's probably a couple days work with today's tools.

What? No. The people that stay are the ones that don't care, that doesn't mean no one cares. That's a selection effect.

The people that care left months or years ago. I'm one of them. It was really easy, Github doesn't offer anything special.

Try and run a Pagerduty with the same level of attention to detail as Github. Far fewer people use Pagerduty casually. That Github has casual users and lazy users does not mean fault tolerance and high availability are 'completely irrelevant'.

That might apply to personal users. But to businesses the switching cost is just too high. We had a discussion about it on our team. It was decided to keep using GitHub unfortunately.

Not all businesses have the same requirements. My company jumped ship months ago. We didn't consider switching to have significant cost, we did consider staying to have noticeable opportunity cost. Easy decision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com